Thursday, August 4, 2011

Muslims Most Likely To Reject Terrorism

6 comments:

This is semi-joke, semi-serious. On some level playing devil's advocate.

It is easy to get around this.

For example - if a person considers, say, the US Military an aggressor. And that person can label the aggressor a terrorist. The military being a branch of the government - and the people are responsible for its government (at least in democratic societies). Then there are no civilians.

Yeah, if one group defines a key word differently, like saying that all Americans are civilians, then the poll is pretty much meaningless. Take it for what you think it's worth I guess. I thought this was blog worthy because I hear Bob Dutko say things like this. He says it's awful that 10% of Muslims think attacking civilians is sometimes justified. Seriously, that's what he says. What he doesn't say is this is the lowest of any of the identified religious groups. 10% is a small proportion, but a lot of people he says. But if the words mean different things to everyone then the whole thing is pointless.

78% Muslims said that violence is never good - I call BS. The Qu'ran/Koran is written in the language of war and oppression. As an atheist Jon, you realize that the Koran outlines that you must convert or be put to death?

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2

Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 4:89

If the unbelievers do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them. Against such you are given clear warrant. 4:91

Fight disbelievers who are near you, and let them see the harshness in you. 9:123

Kind of makes your chart irrelevant when their Kuran outlines that they should kill non believers.

Chad, here's something to consider. Do you think it's possible that religious people sometimes ignore the prescriptions of their holy books?

Take the bible. It's very clear that women must wear head coverings. Women must be silent. Women cannot teach or be in a position of authority over a man. Who follows that? Very few extremely conservative types.

The Bible teaches that if someone were to even attempt to persuade you of another faith, they must be killed. The bible teaches that non-Jewish slaves are slaves forever. Eating shellfish is an abomination. OK, well those are OT so they don't count. But then that's what Muslim scholars do. Don't have unbelieving friends? That was for a particular time when the Muslim tribe was small and vulnerable, so breaking off was a risk. Slay unbelievers? That was for the particular unbelievers at the time, because they were making war. And on and on.

Most Muslims I know have never read the Qur'an. Most Christians I know have never read the Bible. So when you say a women must wear a head covering because this is clearly a biblical teaching they've never heard of it.

A higher proportion of Christian women in America wear the whole "Little House on the Prarie" type clothes than there are Muslims that cover themselves head to toe like the Qur'an mandates. Ask them and they think they are good Muslims following their religion, but they aren't really, just like Christians.

On the other hand they've been subjected to a lot more terrorism than a typical American has, so I can understand their hostility to terrorism and rejection of it as a method for change. Unfortunately our government fully embraces and supports terrorism. Bombing Hiroshima or Dresden. We have an ongoing 50 years terrorism war in progress right now against Cuba. Imagine living in a town where armed bandits just show up and try and kill as many defenseless people as possible. That's life in Cuba. And nobody seems to notice. People that are subjected to that treatment might be expected to be hostile to terrorism.

The hypocrisy I uncovered during my studies is the reason why I did not follow through with that course of study.

Muslim apologists rush forward to assure us that Islam is a peaceful religion. They disingenuously declared that the word Islam means "peace" and they tried to portray the terrorists as a fringe group outside the mainstream of Islam.

The usual meaning of Islam in Arabic is not "peace" but "submission" and if the terrorists were so far outside the mainstream, why did Muslims all over the world burst into joyful, spontaneous celebrations when the hijacked jetliners slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? Why are Islamic governments afraid to show "too much" public support for the war against terrorism? Further, why are all the governments that covertly support terrorism centered in the Muslim world?

The truth is that Islam is not a religion of peace. This is not to say that every Muslim is violent at heart. Many are not. Many Muslims have the same aspirations for living peaceful lives that people have the world over, but they also have a higher potential for violence than others in the name of their God.

Though there are a good number of Muslims who want peaceful relations with us there nevertheless remains a deep and powerful strain of violence within Islam, and it is important that we understand it.

why did Muslims all over the world burst into joyful, spontaneous celebrations when the hijacked jetliners slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?

And why did even more Muslims all over the world condemn the attacks? Why was a candle light vigil held in Tehran in behalf of the victims immediately after the attack? Because when you are talking about a group that consists of a billion people you can get varied reactions. But the majority reaction was one of abhorrence.

But what of western terrorism directed at Muslims? What is the reaction in the the US to that? When the IDF stormed the flotilla and shot various people, including an Amercian citizen in the head execution style, the right wing cheered. When Israel invaded Gaza in 2008 and killed 1400 while encountering no resistance at all it was encouraged and praised by the right. Even Obama defended it. All the human rights agencies (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem) condemned it as outright terrorism. The UN report did the same. The right cheers. That's pretty unsurprising when you look at the results of the poll in this post.

Further, why are all the governments that covertly support terrorism centered in the Muslim world?

Forget about covert terrorism. How about overt terrorism. Is Lebanon sending drones into Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia? Did Iran put Fallujah under siege, preventing males aged 15-40 from leaving prior to the bombing? Did Hamas impose an embargo on a country that lead to the death of a million children, all to encourage regime change? Did you see my post on Cuba? Looks to me like the lead terrorists aren't Muslim.

The number of people killed by Muslims truthfully looks paltry in comparison to the number killed by Christian. So why would we conclude that Islam is unusually violent?

About me

Raised as an evangelical, biblical inerrantist and political right winger I became an atheist and finally left winger later in life. I love to argue since I believe argument is what helped turn my former false beliefs into true ones, and that's been good for me. This blog is kind of a place for me to collect resources that justify my beliefs and also to continue to have arguments that refine and improve my views.